11 February 2018 1:59 AM

Suffragettes? A terrorist gang who DELAYED women's votes

Can everyone please shut up about the suffragettes? You would think, from the way the BBC is going on, that we lived in a society which still treated women unfairly.

Any conscious person knows this is rubbish. In reality, women are as equal as they can be, in the workplace, in politics, in education and in life in general, until someone finds a way of making men have babies.

The fact that the Hollywood salaries of some very senior BBC stars (unthinkably huge in the eyes of most men and women) are not all exactly the same does not really prove that women are an oppressed minority in the workplace.

But precisely because women are in charge of so much at the BBC, listeners have to endure ceaseless propaganda based on the absurd idea that this is a woman-hating, male-dominated country.

I let this twaddle float past me most of the time. But it was the BBC's decision to devote an entire three hours of its main radio news programme Today to droning on about the suffragettes that snapped my patience.

As it happened, there was a huge story which needed to be told and explained that day. There had been a violent convulsion on the world's stock markets which is not yet over, as far as I can see.

But you would barely have known it as the programme rambled, misleadingly, round the distant past.

Can we get something straight about the suffragettes? Many intelligent women hated them at the time, fearing that their violent tactics – arson, bombs and vandalism – were wrecking a good cause.

A lot of people who now lazily praise this behaviour would be furiously hostile to anyone who acted like this in the present day.

The suffragettes planted explosives in railway stations and in crowded streets, sent letter bombs to opponents and actually blew up David Lloyd George's house.

Several postal workers (not rich enough to have the vote at the time) were badly injured in a fire at a sorting office started by suffragettes. Feminist militants argue they didn't actually kill anyone.

But that was probably because some of their more important bombs – especially one left outside the Bank of England – were defused by brave policemen, or didn't go off.

Anyone who plants a bomb in a public place knows it may kill, or maim horribly.

The historian Simon Webb has written: 'The terrorist bombings carried out by the suffragettes have today been almost wholly forgotten.

'Far from hastening the granting of votes for women, the suffragettes impeded the political progress towards this aim by their dangerous actions, causing most people to reject them as violent fanatics.

' Had it not been for the bombings, there is every chance that the vote would have been given to women before, rather than after, the First World War.'

The idea that long-dead people should be pardoned today for doing things that are still crimes now is not just ridiculous and self-indulgent. It is legal and political nonsense.

I know of no evidence that their noisy and lawless campaign hastened the arrival of votes for women by a single second.

Britain was then, as it is now, a free country in which it was quite possible to campaign for a cause without violence or destruction.

Many men supported votes for women, as I believe I would have done at the time. There is no rational case against it.

The non-violent campaigner Millicent Fawcett welcomed men in her movement. The militant suffragettes rejected them.

This glorifying of the suffragettes is all part of a general rewriting of history to suit the prejudices of the Left-wing cultural revolutionaries who have now got control of almost everything in this country.

These revolutionaries have not yet finished. To pursue their final aims, they need to pretend that they have not won, that things are worse than they are.

They also like to spread the idea that only shouting, violent militancy gets results, because shouting, violent militancy is what they like.

It is not true. We have a long, proud record of peaceful constitutional and political reform and we should not despise it.

*****

The saddest event of modern history, the First World War, is once again portrayed on film in the new version of Journey's End, first performed on the stage in 1928. Its pessimism and sense of futile loss are astonishing.

To this day, nobody could successfully film such a drama about the Second World War, which is still regarded as a good and noble conflict, though I wonder how much longer that can last.

The other thing that strikes me is that Journey's End is set on the eve of Germany's last frantic offensive on the Western Front. Yet it never even mentions the reason for this terrible, savage battle, in which the Germans came within inches of victory.

It followed the most cynical foreign policy action ever undertaken by a supposedly civilised power.

Germany, funnelling gold through the sinister middleman Parvus Helphand, financed and organised the Bolshevik putsch in Russia which has ever since been wrongly called the Russian Revolution.

They even arranged for the maniac Vladimir Lenin to travel to Russia.

Russia (as almost everyone forgets) was a democracy at the time. Lenin crushed that freedom with German-financed bayonets.

The German government cared nothing for the fate of the Russian people, whom they casually condemned to 70 years of state-sponsored murder and oppression.

Berlin simply wanted Russia out of the war so that they could send 50 divisions of soldiers westwards, to attack and defeat us. And it very nearly worked.

I am still waiting for the BBC to mark and examine this centenary properly.

They probably haven't heard of it, or perhaps they still believe (as many media folk do) that the communist takeover was 'progressive'.

SACRIFICE: Tom Sturridge as a British officer in the new film

Ignored... the secret evil of the Great War

*****

Mike Barton, Durham's Chief Constable, claims to be distressed that parents at a primary school in his area have been smoking marijuana at the school gates.

He declares: 'If I had been stood next to someone who was smoking cannabis at the school gate, they would have been nicked – pure and simple – and any of my officers would have done the same.'

Would they? I somehow doubt it. Most police officers look the other way these days, when they see dope being smoked.

They don't want to spend hours of their day processing paperwork for an offence the courts ignore. And if they had been arrested, what would have happened to them? I asked the Durham force for last year's figures.

During 2017, there were 129 arrests for simple possession of cannabis in Durham Constabulary area.

Of those, a mere 28 were actually charged with possession (which generally results in a small fine).

A further 34 received a 'cannabis warning', which means they were completely let off. Another 11 were 'cautioned'.

Eight were told they faced 'No Further Action', 12 were released on bail, 33 were released without bail and three cases are still pending.

I should imagine that hundreds, more likely thousands, of cannabis offences went unnoticed, undeterred and undetected.

It is, in all but name, a decriminalised drug now, which is why parents smoke it outside schools. Actually, let's be fair to Mr Barton.

Despite his noisy, soft-on-drugs self-publicity, I doubt if his force is significantly feebler on this issue than any other.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@andrew.dillon:
***The Suffragettes were fighting to give women equal rights to men who regarded them as mere chattels which my dictionary defines as movable possessions.***

I should point out that by the time the suffragettes took to the streets, the progress of Western civilization had already brought them to the brink of equality with men. They were certainly not chattels, nor anything resembling a chattel, being about as close to that state as a lump of coal is to an uncut diamond. Nor did they "fight" to attain the status of equality; rather, they convinced the men who made the laws that the time was ripe to grant them the improved status they sought, and those men acquiesced, not least because they perceived the propriety of it, and the justness of it.

@Mr Bunker:
***Apart from that, does anyone really say (lie) that men and women are "physically equal"? They can't have looked very far if they think so. Mentally perhaps they are, but in that respect women are often "more equal" than men, I'd say!***

It's been my experience that people will tell themselves the most egregious lies in the name of preserving some system of belief that they find essential to their personal equanimity or worldview. In fact, "worldview" is something that can mimic mental illness to the point where even skilled professionals can't tell the difference between a genuine psychosis and a far-out way of perceiving things. And the lie doesn't have to be direct. I agree, you'll probably be hard-pressed to find someone who is hardy enough to publicly declare that women and men are physically equal. But actions speak even louder than words, and there are plenty of people who want to direct public policy in such a way that it's obvious they must believe it.

***By the way, I hope your younger daughter finds that bit of family lore amusing too.***

Oh, she does! I think she tells it to her own children, whenever they're particularly contrary.

Why are you tying yourselves in such knots? As Mr Bunker has pointed out, the proposition that women are as physically strong as men is only a lie if someone has actually ever claimed it. I’ve never seen anyone do this – have you? I rather suspect that Mr J – who is concerned that it is ‘deeply improper’ to suggest otherwise – is once again in full making-things-up mode.

The Suffragettes were fighting to give women equal rights to men who regarded them as mere chattels which my dictionary defines as movable possessions. This attitude finds its way into the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's . No mention of not coveting thy neighbour's husband. This was the result of the curse put upon Adam and Eve when they fell from grace and became mere dust that was doomed to die. Jesus Christ , God's Word made flesh, lived, was crucified,, dead and buried, rose again from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. The Apostle Paul wrote that because of this true event, there is now, no male and female, Jew or Greek, bond or free because Jesus is the new Adam. Adam and Eve were not made two of a kind but Eve was taken from Adam and returned to him as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Male and female are one flesh and this is the meaning of Christian marriage. Man must love his wife as she is part of his body, physically and spiritually. As for the terrorist Suffragettes, their record in this activity pales into insignificance when compared to the record of men. In two World Wars and in the wars since, at least 100 million men have been brutally killed and disfigured by other men. Add to this the civilian deaths by invasion, bombing , the unspeakable crimes committed in concentration camps and gulags . Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Today I have heard of further deaths in God-forsaken Syria. It reminds me of The Lamentations of Jeremiah, Chapter 1 beginning with the words" How doth the city sit solitary, that once was full of people"

Douglas Oswell - thanks for your reply. But you, as a man of letters, must, I'm sure, agree that the example you quote (Colm J's example) is not a lie at all, is it. At best it's a ridiculuous claim and a misleading generalization. Apart from that, does anyone really say (lie) that men and women are "physically equal"? They can't have looked very far if they think so. Mentally perhaps they are, but in that respect women are often "more equal" than men, I'd say! -- By the way, I hope your younger daughter finds that bit of family lore amusting too.

@Mr Bunker:
***Douglas Oswell - you speak of "lies", the adherence to which, you say, leads to contradictions and hence to "the paradox". It would be interesting to hear precisely which "lies"you are referring to - and who is doing the lying.***

It's a general, not a specific observation. For instance the feminist who despises Western civilization because it has been unfair to women, and consequently cleaves (directly or indirectly) to militant Islam, which prefers its women in fetters.

Or, in Colm J's example, the lie that men and women are physically and mentally equal demands acceptance of dogmas and conventions which sustain that lie, a casualty of which is sexual pleasure, since sex implies roles that are inimical to the worldview of men and women as pure equals, as well as placing women in a vulnerable position, their protestations of equality notwithstanding.

I'm somehow reminded of a conversation I had with my younger daughter when she was about seven or eight years old. "I hate cheese," she flatly said. "All cheese?" I asked. "Yes, I hate all cheese," was her adamant reply. "But you like pizza," I observed. At that point you could figuratively see the wheels turning about inside her head, and just as figuratively see the smoke coming from her ears. Finally, brightening, she chimed, "I only like the cheese I like!" and scampered away, convinced, no doubt, that she had reconciled the contradiction. The incident is now an established part of our family lore.

Because that's what it is - though maybe I should use a capital A.. There are several other types of football: American 'gridiron' football, Australian Rules football, and so on. In my experience some Association football fans in Britain tend to bristle at the word 'soccer', regarding it as an unnacceptable Americanism, whereas in reality it's a British abbreviation of the term 'association' - equivalent to calling rugby 'rugger' or champagne 'champers'.

Mike B: My real issue is with the tacit implication of the modern establishment that those women and girls who take no interest in traditionally male sports are in need of state and corporate sponsored 'empowerment'. At what point does that establishment say: 'You know what, we think there are now enough women playing rugby and soccer'? Even if we grant the premise that sport is in general good for one's health and well-being, that doesn't of itself necessitate women playing all the same sports that men play - sports, which, as you indicate, they are often not phsyically equipped to play at the same level that men do. You'll rarely if ever see any acknowledgment of this obvious fact in media discussions of women in sport. In the same way that, say, referring to underwear in public was once taboo, mentioning the fact that women in general have less physical strength than men is now deeply improper.

I agree with you that in theory there's no reason why a competitive spirit need be a ruthless spirit. However such is the central role of sport in modern culture that ruthlessness is now widely portrayed as a virtue to be instilled in all sportspeople. It would be tempting to blame this on the level of financial rewards that now come with sporting success, and doubtless that plays a part, but in Ireland one often hears pundits in the technically still amateur GAA sports (hurling and Gaelilc football) suggest that this or that team "needs to become more ruthless and cynical if they are to gain real success". Indeed even before Rugby Union became professional, the then Five Nations championships weren't always models of sporting behaviour - to put it mildly.

If the state of the economy and the fairness in terms of outcome, are the deciding factors in you choosing to vote, or choosing to abstain (as you did in the referendum), I do wonder if you will voting for the present party (supported by the DUP), or taking your neutral stance that permits you to hurl abuse at politicians in general, and at those you do not agree with.

Rejecting the concept of a 'broad church' in political parties in our political system has zero chance of changing our society.
Perhaps you favour a very different system, but I don't think you've given readers any outline of how that would take place or what it would look like.

Douglas Oswell - you speak of "lies", the adherence to which, you say, leads to contradictions and hence to "the paradox". It would be interesting to hear precisely which "lies"you are referring to - and who is doing the lying.

@Colm J:
***So once again, the real question for me is why so many moderns seek to blot out the distinctions between the sexes - in so far as this can ever be achievable. It's quite a paradox, since they're the ones who elevate sexual pleasure as a great good in itself - yet they seek to erase the very difference that makes for sexual attraction.***

Adherence to lies breeds contradictions, which must be reconciled; hence the paradox.

Mr Bunker: *I wonder whether you have an inferiority complex towards women or even live in fear of them..(I'm told some men do)*

I wonder whether your rather typically feminist resort to crypto-Freudian belittling of anti-feminists is because you have an inferiority complex about your own capacity for honest ad hominem free debate on this subject. (I'm told some feminists do)

As it happens fear of women - in the sense of being intimidated by their beauty, poise and elegance -is a perfectly natural male emotion. GKC once approvingly quoted a friend of his who observed that only men who are physical cowards do not fear women. Having said that, speaking personally, the last type of woman I feel intimidated by is the modern ruthless ultra-competitive woman. The more ambitious, ruthless and physically competitive woman becomes the less sexual power she has over men - a truth feminists would doubtless hotly dispute, but which is nonethelsess readily observable in everyday life.

So once again, the real question for me is why so many moderns seek to blot out the
distinctions between the sexes - in so far as this can ever be achievable. It's quite a paradox, since they're the ones who elevate sexual pleasure as a great good in itself - yet they seek to erase the very difference that makes for sexual attraction.

I've already made it clear that I don't share the belief that sport is by definition beneficial - for men or women. Most modern codified sport is a relatively recent invention - just as going to the office from 9 to 5 is - yet it is treated as if it were an intinsic element of being human. Feminists' enthusiasm for badgering more and more women to participate in sport underscores for me one of my chief objections to the feminist tribe: not that they're "radical" and "anti-male", but that they're deeply conventional and pro all the worst aspects of modern maleness.

You state that many ex-professional footballers have problems with alcohol and drug abuse, as well as gambling. Well, many practising doctors and dentists have at least two of those problems (I'm not certain about gambling) but that can hardly be used to indict medicine and dentistry.

You are right, though, about the mental health issues facing recently retired professional sportsmen as I have already said. Professionals, or ex-professionals, though, are a tiny minority and I don't think that there is much doubt about the mental health benefits of physical activity, generally. Moreover, I do not accept that by encouraging female participation in sport, even competitive sport, even contact sport, one is attempting to instil a sense of ruthlessness in women. They might develop a healthy sense of competition, but that is not necessarily something to be frowned upon and it's also something which they might develop at the local Bridge club.

My point about sport being part and parcel of culture was not that it should be seen as a form of high art, but that it is part of the everyday lives of millions and is, to that extent, cultural. I agree that when commentators and players attempt to 'intellectualise' sport, especially football, they tend t sound ridiculous. I recall, about ten years ago, the captain of the Slovenian football team, before a major competition, saying that his team intended to play an 'existential' brand of football. Me, neither.

Another point on which I find myself in agreement with you is the relentless attempts by broadcasters to try to place women's sports, particularly Rugby Union and football, on the same level as men's. They are simply not as popular and they are not as good, yet sports sections on BBC News constantly tell us about the line-ups, forthcoming matches and results in what I think is called the Women's Premiership. These are events which attract crowds of a few hundred people, although I believe Manchester City Ladies can attract 2,000 or so, more than twice as many as their nearest rivals. No male sport would attract such extensive attention with such meagre interest. Martin, on this blog, has very bravely, in my view, 'come out' as a supporter of non-league Stockport County, who can attract 4,000 or so spectators, yet nobody would expect the BBC to keep us continuously informed of his side's progress, injury worries or activity in the transfer market. That is because, as I hope Martin would agree, nobody, other than diehard fans would be remotely interested. The same goes for Women's Professional football.

By the way, in case anyone says that men are only better at sport because they are stronger, faster and more athletic, well, that's part and parcel of *being* good.

Well, whenever it started, who started it, and how they started it, is still something of a mystery to me as it hit most of the western world at the same time. Still, if it allows you to rattle off another colourful description as to 'who did it', so be it.

As the present lot are, in terms of economic policy, hardly successful, it must present you with a real dilemma come general elections. Will you be taking the same stance as you did in the referendum and refrain from voting? That will, of course, enable you to carry on ranting on the back of a 'it wasn't me that did it' position. Meantime, nothing changes, except, perhaps, the rant level...

Martin
I'm going to agree with Alan Thomas about the rise in spending on things that are considered " must haves", today.
Growing up in the 60's with pretty basic two bedroomed, ( shared with my siblng) home. Clothes for school, best and play.
No ready meals, apart from fish fingers. Dad going off at 3 on a Sunday morning for overtime on the railway, with a vacuum flask of coffee, (very environmentally friendly).
As a young mum and wife, I too saw my husband go off with flask of coffee.
Homemade sandwiches. On his bycycle.
It was a world away from the great big ad campaigns that saw huge success in convincing a generation to be trendy, paying out for bottled water,in plastic, or pricey coffee in plastic or polystyrene cups.
Or pay for a product while promoting the sport name. Walking ads.
I do think, if young didn't spend so much on eating out, nightime out drinking, purchasing the latest trendy trainer, or the latest gadget. If they added it all up, they'd be surprisd.
As a young married, I couldn't envisage such expenditure. I've seen the brainwashing start in my children's generation. It's got worse.
It's a choice.
We now have the upgrade generation. It used to be repair, mend, re-heel, re-paint.
One of my grandchildren is near to buying home with partner. Both really saved. Well done them. However, I can see they could have saved more.
The thinking is different today, choice is still the same.

I read in todays Daily Mail that research in Canada , where the use of Marijuana/Cannabis for medical purposes is legal , are saying that the benefits of such use are overrated and suggesting to Doctors that they should not recommend or prescribe its usage except for certain medical conditions where some benefit has been shown to be helpful.

Martin: (You are this blog's resident 'Martin' are you not?) *...so maybe Colm J should take up curling.*

Thanks all the same, but I wouldn't risk it. If you accidentally stood on one of those sweeping brush thingies and it came back and hit you in the face you could do yourself a nasty injury. No sense in being reckless in the pursuit of glory.

*Look at the handshake between North and South Korea.*

Yes, I suppose, viewed from a certain standpoint, an occasion that affords the western corporate media the opportunity to fawn over a murderous communist dictator and his close relatives and associates is heartwarming.

*George Best, Gazza, Rooney, etc.*

Well I wanted to avoid naming names, but now you mention it those guys do rather prove my point.

Colm J - (if I may be excused for intervening) - I cannot for the life of me agree with your arguments concerning women and sport. Sport is good for the health not only of males but of females too, and so it is perhaps good policy to encourage women to take part in sporting activities just as the men do. Point one.

Point two: If I understand you correctly you negative comments are directed at "modern liberals" and feminists. And you ask: "why do they believe the cause of female progress is served by women doing all the things men do?". The answer of course is: "They" don't. But I presume they do think that women have an equal right to take part in whatever sports they wish to. Do you disagree with that? (I personally think that women would do better not to take part in boxing or cage-fighting, for example, but I think the men would do better not to either.)

Point three: The idea - prominent here in Germany - that women should participate equally in firm-management, politics and so on is quite another matter and has nothing to do with sport. And anyway, I - as one of "them", in your view, I suppose - have doubts about this "positive discrimination" or whatever it's called. But on the other hand I do recognize the need to support women in their struggle for fair play and against the discrimination on sexual grounds that has been pre-dominant in the past.

Point four: You say that, if challenged, you could dredge up hundreds of articles etc. discussing the best ways of getting more women into sport. Well, yes, but if you looked a litte further you could dredge up hundreds of similar articles about way to encourage boy, girls, senior citizeins and even middle-aged men to get into sport. I think that is very sensible and I'm astonished if you don't.

Point five: The idea of playing sport is to achieve a sound mind in a sound body and not intended to "instill ruthlessness and ambition" in women or anyone else (although I see little wrong with ambition). But sport is an excellent way of instilling self-conficence and a "feeling of self-worth" (Selbswertgefühl) in anyone, including the fairer sex. If you think that is a bad thing, I wonder whether you have an inferiority complex towards women or even live in fear of them (I'm told some men do!).

Point six - a bit off topic, but you say that "most of the major religions of the world have traditionally condemned" ambition and ruthlessness. Wow! If the religions of the world had practised what they preach, we might be living in a better world than the present one.

PS - I've coached a mixed group of "oldie badminton players" for over twenty years. My oldest participant is a lady in her ninetieth year, and five of us are in our eighties. We can't match the youngsters for strength and speed, but we can have great fun and keep ourselves fit. You don't want to criticize us too, I hope.

Yes, life has always unfair for many at the bottom of the pile; it just seems a great pity that too many in that position resort to spending too much on non-essentials, or on 'me too' items, becoming fodder for the marketing industry in the process. Looking around, I see what I consider stupid spending on so many items, coffee on-the-hoof being one of them, junk food being much in the same league.

We seem to have learned little from the lessons of the sharp economic collapse some ten years ago. Pointing a finger at the guilty seldom, as we have seen, results in wiser decisions being taken by both those at the top or the bottom of the ladder.

By the way, is that other Martin who calls in on occasions actually you in full name?

Colm J says, "it's the negative side - the side the media rarely dwell upon"

Really? I thought it was the only side the British media dwell upon. They build people up to knock them down - George Best, Gazza, Rooney etc. Sport is all in all beneficial to health and the world in general. Look at the handshake between North and South Korea in the Winter Olympics. Unlike some religious and political factions, sport brings people together and gives people who perhaps wouldn't have been able to make much of their lives something to aspire to. I know some sports can be dangerous, such as skiing, so maybe Mr. Colm should take up curling.

Thucydides: "...for some reason you're uncomfortable with the idea of women playing sport."

For me the real question is why modern liberals of your type are uncomfortable with the idea of women NOT playing traditionally male sports. After all I'm not the one calling for state action to diminish the number of women in sport, whereas liberals favour using the state to vastly increase the number of women in traditionally male sports. Why is this such an obsession for them? Once again I ask: why do they believe the cause of female progress is served by women doing all the things men do? Once again I'm not holding my breath waiting for a reply.

You say I haven't substantiated my claims about the premise of the establishment and media. I have of course: If pointing to state diktats stipulating female management quotas for all sporting organisations does not constitute irrefutable evidence for my claims in this regard, I really don't know what could. Furthermore I could, if challenged, dredge up hundreds of articles/interviews/news items etc., discussing the best ways of getting more women into sport. If you can point to one BBC article which even acknowledges that there are those who doubt the wisdom of this drive I'll be very impressed.

I also find it telling that liberals and feminists invariably believe that the answer to male ambition and ruthlessness is to seek to instill ruthlessness and ambition in women (or to be more precise, to instill such characteristics in those women who do not already possess them.) You imply that you believe ambition and ruthlessness are "normal"; Maybe so, but but most of the major religions of the world have traditionally condemned them as dangerous vices.

**
"An Uzbek asylum seeker who confessed to wanting to run over "infidels" in the April 2017 Stockholm truck attack that killed five people will go on trial Tuesday accused of terrorism.

Rakhmat Akilov had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State (Isis) on the eve of his assault on the Swedish capital, though the jihadist group never claimed responsibility.

The prosecution's charge sheet, presented in late January, paints a picture of a lonely illegal alien working odd construction jobs who *drank alcohol and took drugs*, and who acted alone."
(Thelocal. 11 Feb. 2018)

**
”LAS VEGAS (AP) — The much anticipated autopsy report on Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock did nothing to help explain why he carried out the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history — his body didn’t hold diseases or drugs or other substances that could have caused aggressive behavior. …

The report — released Friday in response to a lawsuit by The Associated Press and the Las Vegas Review-Journal — showed gunman Stephen Paddock had anti-anxiety drugs in his system but was not under the influence of them.” (Apnews Feb. 10, 2018)

Though Paddock’s history of drug use was seemingly taken much more seriously in October 2017 by the media.

”Stephen Paddock, who killed at least 58 people and wounded hundreds more in Las Vegas on Sunday with high-powered rifles, was prescribed an anti-anxiety drug in June that can lead to aggressive behavior, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has learned.

Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior. Chronic use or abuse of sedatives such as diazepam can also trigger psychotic experiences …”

Douglas Oswell and Mike B: Sport is by no means always beneficial to health. I'm sure you're both aware of the ongoing controversy over the extent of the risk of serious brain injury NFL players face - a risk also faced by rugby players. Then there's the everyday stuff that can still be serious: achilles tendonitis, cruciate ligament tears, pulled hamstrings and so on. Even non-contact sports such as running can take a very serious toll on the joints; many former athletes end up needing hip replacement surgery. My old PE teacher was a compulsive jogger all his adult life. I bump into him now and then and it ain't a pretty sight: he's painfully gaunt, sunken jawed and hobbles about like a semi-invalid. He's only in his early 60s, but he looks and moves as if he were at least 15 years older And I haven't even touched on the side effects of the steroid abuse that even many low-level amateur sports-people now have recourse to.

Even the mental health benefits of sport, though real, can be exaggerated. A female friend of mine who once represented Ireland in middle distance running is on medication for depression. Many ex football pros have gambling, alcohol or drug problems.

Obviously this is only one side of the story - the negative side - but it's a side the media rarely dwell upon.

If what I've read of your views on what brought us into the 'fine messes' (as Mr Hardy would term it) we've lived through for several decades is as accurate an assessment of my political position, I'm not really inclined to accept your verdicts on anything!

As to my 'mansion' - in reality, a one-bedroom flat, and far removed from your imaginative excesses - the only signs permitted are those of estate agents, usually resulting from the fate that awaits us all.

Yes, we certainly have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to making things, as much else of the Western world has also discovered. A rapidly changing world has, as will become even more apparent in the near future, resulted in the arrival of a reluctant realisation that we cannot continue to think that what we do to earn a living permits us to live in the dream-like way we do. Reality can be a very frightening experience, and is most unlikely to be softened by the purchase of the latest must-have thingy. One could say 'we all need to wake up and grow up' pdq.

Mike B: "Only, I would suggest, if you think of culture soley in terms of the more aesthetic, high-minded and cerebral pursuits."

Strangely enough it's when sports afficionados start getting cerebral that I start yawning. When Roy Keane played his first game for Nottingham Forest, his manager, Brian Clough's only instructions were: "Remember son, to pass the ball to players on your own team." A far cry from today's endless pseudo-technical waffle about formations. Listening to this dismal stuff, if one didn't know better one might be forgiven for thinking that a football pitch was the size of Hyde Park.

There's also a strong whiff of inverted snobbery about modern attitudes to sport - association football in particular.There's a particularly cringeworthy episode of Yes Minister in which Jim Hacker nobly goes to battle for football, "the people's game", against the effete opera loving civil servant Sir Humphrey. I'm no opera buff, but it's one of the great ironies of modern times that this type of pandering to vulgar popular bigotry is perfectly acceptable - not least among those who shudder at the idea of populism in other contexts.

I get the appeal of occasions like Six Nations matches in the stadium formerly known as Cardiff Arms Park: my beef is with the way sport now dominates popular culture to the exclusion of other human activities, such as poetry, philosophy, serious music and so on.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.